Without a monopoly agency to restrain the use of force, people would be able to use force against others without having to prove to the rest of society (however large it may be) that their use of force is retaliatory and therefore aimed to protect individual rights. So, I suppose the essence of what is recognized under the 2nd Amendment would perhaps be more important under anarchism since people would have to cope with others employing force arbitrarily, as oppose to what would exist under limited government.

As to the usefulness of the 2nd Amendment under a governmental system, well I think even you would prefer a 2nd Amendment over the absence of a 2nd Amendment. It recognizes the right to use a firearm to employ emergency force (as describes in my anarchism critique).

Don't let your obsession with utilitarian-based if-then causal projections cloud your mind from grasping simple truths-- no individual has the right to initiate the use of physical force or to instantiate himself as the sole arbiter of violence in a given geographical area.

I didn't get your comment about the 2nd Amendment and its importance under anarchism. All I know is what is "recognized" under the 2nd Amendment is obvious under conditions of anarchy-- that no individual has the right to initiate the use of force against another individual in an attempt to disarm him.

As for your final comment about my preference toward a 2nd Amendment, I am honestly indifferent. Legal provisions maintaining a person's right to do X, which are subject to arbitrary enforcement and even more arbitrary de facto redaction via judicial review are less than worthless. And any government which has succeeded in being truly "limited" in nature (btw, the proper use of the term and understanding of the concept should be a preference for "limiting government" as a process or habit of action, rather than seeking "limited government" as an endpoint or static state of being) shouldn't have any need to specifically codify into law its inability to deprive peaceful people of their firearms because to do so would be a CRIME and it should go without saying, be commonly accepted knowledge in other words, that a "limited government" is not free to engage in criminal behavior simply because no one thought to specifically outline the absence of such liberties on a piece of intellectual-toilet paper. I mean is that not obvious, that a "limited government" whose just occupation is guaranteeing justice to all, should not be busying itself with committing crimes against people and their property?

I admire your efforts to intellectually defend your ideal of limited government but unfortunately they repeatedly fail because you refuse to seriously and honestly engage the very simple truths of a consistent understanding of justice and property rights in the first place. You don't get to be the "weigher of outcomes" and decide for the rest of us if greater injury and injustice would be arrived at by individuals potentially being confused over whether someone legitimately defended themselves from aggressive use of force or if a monopoly violence agency were given the power to make those determinations for us. You do not have the mental powers of calculation necessary to weigh the subjective costs and benefits in units of "util" and then assign a rule for everyone to follow as a result.

"I mean is that not obvious, that a "limited government" whose just occupation is guaranteeing justice to all, should not be busying itself with committing crimes against people and their property?"

What constitutes a crime against people and their property? Taxation? Yes. What about voluntary slave contracts or fractional reserve banking, patterns of behaviour that libertarians, particularly Mises people, quarrel over? Its not self-evident whether these patterns of behavious are aggressive or not. An action, prima facie, may seem aggressive when, after careful consideration, one discovers that its truly non-aggressive, and vice versa. Codifying prohibitions on government conduct is a cost-free hedge against risk.

"You don't get to be the "weigher of outcomes" and decide for the rest of us if greater injury and injustice would be arrived at by individuals potentially being confused over whether someone legitimately defended themselves from aggressive use of force or if a monopoly violence agency were given the power to make those determinations for us."

I argue that anarchism legally permits behaviour that undermines the establishment of the necessary conditions for the long term sustenance and progress of civil society. Surely you do not argue against preferring one social system over another. Undoubtedly you would hold that libertarian anarchism (as a social system) is better than socialism. My conditional proposition is, IF the long term sustenance and progress of civil society is one's objective, then a social system with a limited government is better than one without, i.e., anarchism.

"You do not have the mental powers of calculation necessary to weigh the subjective costs and benefits in units of "util" and then assign a rule for everyone to follow as a result."

Nor do I have the mental capacity to price stock options or futures contracts from scratch. The point is, I don't allege to possess such powers, nor do I claim to be able to make the calculations you allude to. Furthermore, no such use of "utils" are necessary in order to demonstrate the superiority of one social system over another with a given objective in mind, since measurement is not involved in this endeavor. "Utils" involve measurement. This does not involve measurement, thus this does not involve "utils."

Your anarchism essay was, simply put, trash. I am not going to dance around it at this point as you refuse to see what is obvious. It was page upon page of attempts at reasoning one's way to the unreasonable. You've already received numerous critiques on that essay, all of which you ignored. ("I'll respond evetually")

Your mere recital of the limited government position does absolutely nothing to explain where your limited government comes upon the right to initiate the use of physical force. The best you've been able to muster as an argument is this consequentialist attempt at fear-mongering, viz, "If we don't give this group over here the right to initiate the use of physical force, an unresolveable social quandry will arise and civil society (which I define as a society where every individual save the members of government are to follow the rule of not initiating the use of physical force) will break down!"

That isn't an argument. It's fear-based reactionary thinking and it's arbitrary. You fail to explain how some individuals can behave in an unjust manner and thereby arrive at an outcome that is comparatively more just for everybody.

The actions that a government should not be legally able to perform should be explicitly expressed. I believe taking things for granted is a dangerous habit.

Leads to an absurdity. Your document would need to be infinitely long and would need to proscribe every possible behavior and its many variants you wish to guard against.

How so? Have I deviated from this reference? I have thus far treated a "limited government" as an assembly of people equipped with factors of production with a specific purpose.

Precisely what I said is the incorrect interpretation of the concept. That's limited government as an end sought, rather than limiting government as a means to an end sought (freedom, better known as justice).

My conditional proposition is, IF the long-term sustenance and progress of civil society is one's objective, then a social system with a limited government is better than anarchism. No such concept of "util" is necessary, since no measurement is involved, nor do I presume to possess the mental powers necessary to make the calculations you allude to.

This makes no sense.

Here's what I want to debate: economically, what set of conditions leads to the greatest satisfaction of wants as determined by individuals themselves? Socially/legally, what set of conditions leads to the greatest extent of justice as measured against the objective standard of natural law/individual rights?

Do you seek to find answers to those questions? Or are you trying to set up something completely different, that being your preferred "civil society" which may be neither the most just nor the most economically efficient? If the former, I fail to see where you are confused about this and if the latter, why would you choose as your ideal something less than the best?

I have a feeling you don't even understand what you're actually arguing for or about. You seem to be trying to pick some middle standard in between a philosophy of justice and a philosophy or economics.

"...no individual has the right to initiate the use of physical force or to instantiate himself as the sole arbiter of violence in a given geographical area."

The libertarian anarchist argument against the legitimacy of government is something a critique in my essay. A mere recital of the anarchist position won't convince an opponent of anarchism.

"And any government which has succeeded in being truly "limited" in nature...shouldn't have any need to specifically codify into law its inability to deprive peaceful people of their firearms because to do so would be a CRIME and it should go without saying, be commonly accepted knowledge in other words, that a "limited government" is not free to engage in criminal behavior simply because no one thought to specifically outline the absence of such liberties on a piece of intellectual-toilet paper."

If a limited government cannot, say, legally establish price controls, then it cannot hurt to formally illegalize the establishment of price controls by expressing such an illegalization as a law. However, I don't argue that a limited government should be able to do what it is not explicitly prohibited from doing.

"btw, the proper use of the term and understanding of the concept should be a preference for "limiting government" as a process or habit of action, rather than seeking "limited government" as an endpoint or static state of being"

How so? Have I deviated from this mode of reference? I have thus far treated a "limited government" as an assembly of people equipped with factors of production with tasked with a specific objective.

"I mean is that not obvious, that a "limited government" whose just occupation is guaranteeing justice to all, should not be busying itself with committing crimes against people and their property?"

What constitutes a crime against people and their property? Taxation? Yes. What about voluntary slave contracts or fractional reserve banking, patterns of behaviour that libertarians, particularly Mises people, quarrel over? Its not self-evident whether these patterns of behavious are aggressive or not. An action, prima facie, may seem aggressive when, after careful consideration, one discovers that its truly non-aggressive, and vice versa. Codifying prohibitions on government conduct is a cost-free hedge against risk.

"You don't get to be the "weigher of outcomes" and decide for the rest of us if greater injury and injustice would be arrived at by individuals potentially being confused over whether someone legitimately defended themselves from aggressive use of force or if a monopoly violence agency were given the power to make those determinations for us."

I argue that anarchism legally permits behaviour that undermines the establishment of the necessary conditions for the long term sustenance and progress of civil society. Surely you do not argue against preferring one social system over another. Undoubtedly you would hold that libertarian anarchism (as a social system) is better than socialism. My conditional proposition is, IF the long term sustenance and progress of civil society is one's objective, then a social system with a limited government is better than one without, i.e., anarchism.

"You do not have the mental powers of calculation necessary to weigh the subjective costs and benefits in units of "util" and then assign a rule for everyone to follow as a result."

Nor do I have the mental capacity to price stock options or futures contracts from scratch. The point is, I don't allege to possess such powers, nor do I claim to be able to make the calculations you allude to. Furthermore, no such use of "utils" are necessary in order to demonstrate the superiority of one social system over another with a given objective in mind, since measurement is not involved in this endeavor. "Utils" involve measurement. This does not involve measurement, thus this does not involve "utils."

Ugh. Thanks for letting me know. I have received a number of critiques, though I don't think any of them accomplish their aim. I believe they have argued beside the point. For another time perhaps.

My arguments lie in my anarchism critique. I've referred to it already, yet you accuse me of failing to offer arguments against anarchism and in favor of government. Thats one of the reasons why I often make my arguments explicit, in syllogistic form, so there's no mistaking them for something else (I can recall you discouraging me from doing this further).

"The actions that a government should not be legally able to perform should be explicitly expressed. I believe taking things for granted is a dangerous habit."

"Leads to an absurdity. Your document would need to be infinitely long and would need to proscribe every possible behavior and its many variants you wish to guard against."

Hardly. I believe you've misconstrued my suggestion. I don't argue that every conceivable form of aggression should be listed. But there are major forms of aggression that certainly should be listed. These prohibitions can be expressed as categorical propositions and thus used in deductive arguments to determine if a particular act committed by the government is aggressive. Hence, if my constitution includes the following:

"All establishments of price controls are unlawful acts"

and the government imposes a minimum wage law, my jurists would argue as follows:

In the meantime, maybe you want to address some of those critiques in your essay instead of talking past them as if you've answered them?

The major one to start with might be your consequentalist argument.

Would you agree with this line of reasoning?

"Without a monopoly food production agency, some people would possibly not have enough food and starve. Therefore, there should be a monopoly food production agency."

If not, can you explain how this reasoning is different from your own reasoning, which is as follows:

"Without a monopoly agency to restrain the use of force, people would be able to use force against others without having to prove to the rest of society (however large it may be) that their use of force is retaliatory and therefore aimed to protect individual rights."

Someone already specifically raised the point, by the way, that this problem still exists right now and will always exist, even under the conditions of your ideal limited government, and asked how the establishment of a limited government is an actual solution to that problem.

Meanwhile, I continue to ask how you "weigh" these things? Do you not acknowledge that there is an obvious tradeoff here in what you are advocating, that being the tradeoff between the injustice caused to an individual who is the victim of the limited government's aggression, and the justice gained (potentially and supposedly) by everyone knowing that the use of force by the limited government is in fact just?

"Precisely what I said is the incorrect interpretation of the concept. That's limited government as an end sought, rather than limiting government as a means to an end sought (freedom, better known as justice)."

Why can't a limited government be both a means and an end? As Gene Callahan writes in "Economics for Real People"

"Food is a means toward the end of survival, but an end sought by employing the means of rat hunting. The same good can be a means from the vantage point of plan A and an end from the vantage point of plan B."

With regard to my conditional proposition about anarchism, I don't see why it would be unintelligible. I say if society is to be civil, prosperous, etc., then certain conditions have to be met. Condition A is a necessary condition for the existence of such a society. Anarchism makes the establishment of condition A impossible, hence anarchism cannot yield a civil, prosperous society, at least in the long term.

-If a civil, prosperous society exists, then condition A exists.-(Assuming anarchism exists) Condition A does not exist-Thus, a civil, prosperous society does not exist

For something to be an end, it has to be something which provides a person with a subjective satisfaction in and of itself. One person might pursue various means to seek the end of "seeing my child happy" because seeing their child in a happy state is enough in itself to make that person satisfied.

Do you, personally, derive satisfaction simply from knowing limited government exists? In other words, ignoring what limited government might do for you or provide for you in terms of a social context, do you derive satisfaction from the sole fact of knowing it exists?

Either way, one can not legitimately pursue ends whose achievement result in the denial of other person's satisfactions and freedoms. Your limited government, by its very existence, forcibly prevents me from achieving my ends and my satisfaction. You are not entitled to desire an end that forcibly prevents me from doing the same. This is similar to how you can not legitimately claim the theft of another person's property, or the murder of people you don't like, or the rape of people you find attractive, as a desired end.

As absurd as Gene Callahan himself can be, I think you have seriously misinterpreted what he is saying in this situation. He is not justifying "institutional violence as a means and an end", he is simply stating that there are some things which can serve as both means and ends in an economic sense. Government (institutionalized coercion) is not one of those things.

You need to define two terms that you keep flinging about willy-nilly before we go any further:

1.) "civil"2.) "prosperous"

Define these terms so I know what you're talking about.

Btw, no need to bring in technical latin logic terms, especially when you haven't yet demonstrated a mastery of basic logic, first. Comes across as a bit rude and flippant.

"Meanwhile, I continue to ask how you "weigh" these things? Do you not acknowledge that there is an obvious tradeoff here in what you are advocating, that being the tradeoff between the injustice caused to an individual who is the victim of the limited government's aggression, and the justice gained (potentially and supposedly) by everyone knowing that the use of force by the limited government is in fact just?"

This is a loaded question. I reject the claim that prohibiting the use of private, non-emergency force is aggression.

But furthermore, if a private individual or private security agency uses force without demonstrating to the public that its use of force is retaliatory and used to defend individual rights, how do we know the force in question was initiatory or retaliatory? Anarchism permits such behaviour. With limited government, the dilemma over discerning the nature of force used to resolved.

Public awareness of the nature of the force employed in their neighborhoods is, I argue, a necessary condition for the long term sustenance, civility, and growth of society. This awareness is undercut by anarchism and made possible by limited government, just like socialism makes economic calculation impossible and the possibility of economic calculation is a necessary condition for the existence of an industrial, efficient, growing economy.

What if people and institutions could legally use force without demonstrating to others that their uses of force were retaliatory and aimed at defending individual rights? I believe the chaos that many believe comes from anarchism finds its origins in this characteristic of anarchism.

What if people and institutions could legally use force without demonstrating to others that their uses of force were retaliatory and aimed at defending individual rights? I believe the chaos that many believe comes from anarchism finds its origins in this characteristic of anarchism.

Your argument rests on faith. Nothing more.

You have not demonstrated why the limited government's claim that it uses force in defense of individual rights is inherently more believable and more valid than the individual's in a state of anarchy.

Your entire argument fails because you can't produce that proof. You simply accept it as given that the limited government's claim is more valid as a fact of existence, when no such fact of existence is demonstrable.

What if people and institutions could legally use force without demonstrating to others that their uses of force were retaliatory and aimed at defending individual rights? I believe the chaos that many believe comes from anarchism finds its origins in this characteristic of anarchism.

Hilarious, because this describes exactly what happens today and would still happen under your limited government. Your limited government police force could haul off anyone they want, shoot anyone they want on the spot, etc., and all they'd need to do to prove it is just is flash their badges.

"S'alright, folks, we're from the government, we're here to help you, remember? Just taking care of some criminal scum."

"Uh, it looks like you just walked up to that guy and shot him when he didn't do anything to you."

"Nope, think again folks, we're from the limited government, remember? We use force to defend individual rights, so it can't possibly be that we're abusing our power."

"Do you, personally, derive satisfaction simply from knowing limited government exists? In other words, ignoring what limited government might do for you or provide for you in terms of a social context, do you derive satisfaction from the sole fact of knowing it exists?"

Limited government does not exist, hence I cannot derive satisfaction from it at the present. Limited government, to me, is a end - or rather, a state of affairs where a limited government exists, is a end for me. Once such an end is manifest, then I will provide me with satisfaction. I don't get satisfaction from knowing it exists, I get satisfaction from its existence.

"Either way, one can not legitimately pursue ends whose achievement result in the denial of other person's satisfactions and freedoms. Your limited government, by its very existence, forcibly prevents me from achieving my ends and my satisfaction. You are not entitled to desire an end that forcibly prevents me from doing the same. This is similar to how you can not legitimately claim the theft of another person's property, or the murder of people you don't like, or the rape of people you find attractive, as a desired end."

Oh no!?! I think your first statement is clearly false. What if the satisfaction you're pursuing is the possession of my car? Surely the denial of that pursuit is legitimate. As for freedoms, well, the freedom you are demanding is the freedom to use force against others without demonstrating to the public that your use of force is retaliatory and aimed at protecting individual rights, i.e., the freedom to use force in a way the inexorably threatens the rights of others in your community. Force that has not been first demonstrated to be retaliatory is a hazard. What was it intended to be? Retaliatory? Initiatory? Who knows. But since we can't know what it was intended to be, and force is the only thing that can violate the rights of others, it should be considered a hazard, a threat. As Don Watkins notes (and I've quoted him before),

"Since whether an act of force is initiatory or retaliatory is not self-evident, and since a man who initiates force is by that fact a threat to society, any man who engages in force that has not been proved by objective means to be retaliatory must be considered a threat. This is the deepest reason why the use of retaliatory force must be delegated to the government: an act of retaliation that isn't first proved to be an act of retaliation is indistinguishable from an act of aggression -- and must be treated as such."

Wanting to use force without offering such a public demonstration amounts to wanting to threaten the rights of others. One can hardly have a right to act this way.

-Civil (as in "civil society" from my essay): adj [siv-uhl], marked by the general absence of the initiation of the use of force or the threat of the initiation of the use of force, i.e., aggression.-Prosperous: adj [pros-per-uhs], having or characterized by financial success or good fortune; flourishing; successful

"Btw, no need to bring in technical latin logic terms, especially when you haven't yet demonstrated a mastery of basic logic, first. Comes across as a bit rude and flippant."

Ah, I see this one has bite, as they say. Well, I tend to reciprocate any and all sass that I encounter. Thus, if my essay was "trash" and the tone you took can be taken, then the Latin labeling of my arguments should be more than appropriate.

I'm not interested in having a pissing match with you. If you can't leave your ego at the door there's no way we're going to get to the bottom of things because you're going to confuse your hurt feelings with your erroneous thinking. Your essay on anarchism was mental diarrhea. You completely ignored your audience (read: not an academic, formal logic professor) and spewed out your theory in paragraph after paragraph in a manner that was overkill. You could've stated your premise and your thesis very simply and succinctly in maybe one or two paragraphs and communicated the exact same idea. The fact that you chose instead to write on and on ad nauseum(!) leads people to believe you either have some self-esteem issue about your own intelligence and think you can impress people into not noticing, or you're such a confused thinker yourself that you don't realize how ridiculous you're being in writing like that on an internet blog, where you often post cool YouTube videos amongst other informal pursuits (or are YouTube videos acceptable submissions in a logic department at a major university these days?).

I don't get satisfaction from knowing it exists, I get satisfaction from its existence.

This doesn't make sense. One can not derive satisfaction from something whose existence one is unaware of.

Limited government, to me, is a end - or rather, a state of affairs where a limited government exists, is a end for me.

The first and second ideas introduced in this sentence are different things. Limited government, and the conditions which you imagine will exist under a limited government, are two different entities. Either one can be ends you derive satisfaction from but they are not the same thing. I asked you a simple question and you confused it with this indiscrete thinking.

You can not assume that which you are trying to prove. That's a logical fallacy. You aren't at liberty to make the claim that you seek the state of affairs which exist coincidentally with a limited government as an end, when you have yet to demonstrate that those state of affairs and limited government are indeed coincidental and that there is a causal relationship.

This is what you're trying to prove. You may not assume what you're trying to prove.

As for freedoms, well, the freedom you are demanding is the freedom to use force against others without demonstrating to the public that your use of force is retaliatory and aimed at protecting individual rights, i.e., the freedom to use force in a way the inexorably threatens the rights of others in your community.

I've demanded no such right. This is what you are fixated on. I have not demanded the right to "use force" against anyone I like without demonstrating to anyone else whether that use of force is legitimate or not.

The right I have, clearly stated before so I am surprised you still twist it, is to resist the initiation of the use of force by another individual against me. Conversely, no individual has the right to initiate the use of force against any other individual.

In defending myself from the predations of another individual bent on violating my rights, I do not need to demonstrate to anyone else that my behavior is legitimate or not. The dispute is between me and my aggressor. At no point during which a person is assaulting me and violating my liberties is it incumbent upon me to demonstrate to anyone else, as their right, that my resistance is legitimate. No one is born with a right to have other people prove to them that the other person's violent resistance of another is legitimate. No one has a right to "live in a civil community" or to even feel like they live in such a community.

If anyone has doubts about the legitimacy of a person's resistance, they are perfectly free to ask that person to peacefully cooperate in an investigation, trial or other judicial process to determine, to the satisfaction of the community, that such resistance was legitimate, or to otherwise cease interacting in a voluntary manner with that individual who refuses to do so (that is, boycott that individual).

Your Don Watkins quote is, as per usual, absolute garbage. I'll break it down for you since you don't get it:

Since whether an act of force is initiatory or retaliatory is not self-evident, and since a man who initiates force is by that fact a threat to society, any man who engages in force that has not been proved by objective means

These objective means need to be defined.

to be retaliatory must be considered a threat.

False. MAY be considered a threat. Not must. No one has any obligation to default to distrusting a person's actions. Whether this assertion was carelessly worded or not, it is wrong.

This is the deepest reason why the use of retaliatory force must be delegated to the government: an act of retaliation that isn't first proved to be an act of retaliation is indistinguishable from an act of aggression -- and must be treated as such.

Again, MAY, not MUST.

Michael... I am starting to get frustrated with you. You and Mr. Watkins assume that which you are trying to prove-- that government is more worthy of trust, is more obviously retaliatory than a lone individual. WHY? PROVE THIS, MICHAEL.

One of your last critics, James, pointed out that he could "solve" this quandry by simply calling all individuals "governments" and thereby ridding the world of aggressive violence.

You need to demonstrate to us where the "magic" happens. What process leads an individual and his violent acts to go from being questionable and untrustworthy, to trustworthy and objectively retaliatory, simply because he is part of the "government."

I'm going to repeat this part because it's important and you keep ignoring it-- you need to explain to us what it is about saying "I am doing this to defend individual rights" as a member of government rather than as a single individual, that makes it inherently more believable. "Because that's what government is supposed to do" is not a satisfactory explanation. Again, as one of your critics mentioned, via Ayn Rand, "Ought is not an is."

Wanting to use force without offering such a public demonstration amounts to wanting to threaten the rights of others.

Completely false. Bigotedly false. No one is born with a right to have other people's acts of violence proven to be self-defense. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. You should know better being a pro-am logician.

-Civil (as in "civil society" from my essay): adj [siv-uhl], marked by the general absence of the initiation of the use of force or the threat of the initiation of the use of force, i.e., aggression.

Your limited government violates this, not only because it is financed via taxation which is aggression, theft, but also because it arrogates to itself the right to use retaliatory force, which is not a right it has and which requires the violent suppression (initiation or threat to initiate the use of force) against anyone who might disagree. Again, you have to prove that government's claim to retaliatory violence is objectively true, not true because you want to believe it's true or that's what you think government should be or do.

-Prosperous: adj [pros-per-uhs], having or characterized by financial success or good fortune; flourishing; successful

This is not a sufficiently rigorous definition of the term to use in a discussion like this. "Good fortune" is subjective, as are "flourishing" and "successful". "Financial success"? Come ON Michael! You of all people should know better, you document this on your blog, you observe from your study of Austrian economics that a society can appear to be prosperous, flourishing, "financially successful" and blessed with good fortune thanks to the wonders of money printing, for example, when it is in fact, not.

Your use of "prosperous" needs to have an economic definition or it is useless. The Chinese Communist Party can claim for itself a "prosperous" nation.